R v Meadors (David Dean) - Sentence Judgment

¶ ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 1 of 13 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL SIDE 2 3 IND NO: 0060/2017 4 5 6 REGINA 7 8 v. 9 10 DAVID DEAN MEADORS 11 12 13 14 Appearances: Nicole Petit for the Crown 15 16 Mr. Ben Tonner Q.C. of McGrath Tonner 17 for the Defendant 18 19 20 Before: Justice Roger Chapple (Actg.) 21 Heard: 24th May 2019 22 23 24 HEADNOTE 25 Criminal Law – Firearms Act - Importation of unlicenced firearm contrary to 26 s.3(1) and s.3(3); Possession of an unlicenced firearm contrary to s.15(1) and 27 s.15(5); Possession of an unlicenced firearm (ammunition) contrary to s.15(1) 28 and s.15(5) – Sentence following guilty pleas. Exceptional circumstances argued. 29 30 31 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 2 of 13

¶ [1] I make it clear at the outset of this judgment that in this case I will not be imposing 1 sentences of imprisonment. 2 3

¶ [2] That, on the face of it, may very well be thought to be surprising, since first and 4 foremost, two of the offences to which this Defendant has pleaded guilty – Counts 1 5 and 2 - carry with them a mandatory minimum term of 7 years’ imprisonment. 6 7

¶ [3] Parliament has made its views plain that offences of importation and unlicensed 8 possession of a firearm are to be viewed with the utmost seriousness. It is not hard 9 to understand why. Gun crime has been described as the scourge of these islands. 10 This Defendant, and several of those who have written character references on his 11 behalf, speak of the beauty, tranquillity and unspoiled nature of these islands. All of 12 which descriptions are apt. However, below the surface is an underbelly of crime. 13 Gun crime is of deep concern to us all. Far too often these courts have to deal with 14 cases involving firearms – cases where firearms are used to threaten, to injure, to 15 maim and to kill – and the victims are often young men in the prime of life. Every 16 unlicensed firearm brought onto these islands is another firearm too many. The 17 unlicensed possession of firearms is illegal, and Parliament has made clear its policy 18 of almost zero tolerance. No matter how careful, how responsible a gun owner may 19 be, there is always a risk that the firearm will fall into the wrong hands. The weapon 20 with which this case is concerned, an apparently new 9 mm Glock handgun along 21 with 240 rounds of ammunition, falling into the wrong hands? The consequences do 22 not bear thinking about. 23 24 25 26 27 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 3 of 13 EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES 1 2

¶ [4] Section 39 of the Firearms Act 2008 requires that in respect of counts 1 and 2 of this 3 indictment, the Defendant, David Meadors, having pleaded guilty, the court shall 4 impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least seven (7) years, unless the court is of 5 the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the 6 offender which justify it not doing so, and such circumstances shall be stated by the 7 relevant court. 8 9

¶ [5] If the minimum term is to be avoided, the circumstances must be truly exceptional. 10 It is important that the courts do not undermine the intention of Parliament or the 11 deterrent purpose of the minimum-term provisions by too readily accepting 12 exceptional circumstances in any given case. The superior courts have given useful 13 guidance. In R v Kelly1, Bingham, LJ said this: 14 15 “We must construe exceptional as an ordinary, familiar English adjective 16 and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to 17 form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course or unusual, or 18 special or uncommon. To be exceptional, a circumstance need not be 19 unique, or unprecedented or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly 20 or routinely or normally encountered.” 21 22

¶ [6] In R v Rehman and Wood2, Lord Woolf explained that circumstances are 23 exceptional if the imposition of the minimum term would result in an arbitrary and 24 disproportionate sentence. He went on to explain that the court’s approach should be 25 a holistic one. The court should look at all the circumstances of a particular case 26 taken together. I have been assisted by the recent case of Nancarrow3 in which the 27 England and Wales Court of Appeal conducted a helpful review of how the question 28 of exceptional circumstances should be approached. If there are exceptional 29 1 [2000] QB 198 2 [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 77 3 [2019] EWCA Crim 470 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 4 of 13 circumstances, then a sentence of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum 1 may be imposed or a different type of sentence. 2 3

¶ [7] The Defendant is a citizen of the United States of America and ordinarily resident in 4 Florida. Sometime in or before 2017, he purchased land on Cayman Brac, where he 5 planned to build a house to which he and his wife intended, in due course to retire. 6 Construction work was underway when, on 17th July 2017, customs officers visited 7 the site and inspected a shipping container Mr Meadors had had shipped from the 8 United States to Cayman Brac. Inside the container, along with construction 9 materials and household items, officers discovered six boxes of 9 mm ammunition 10 – a total of 240 rounds. Mr Meadors was arrested and taken to the Brac police 11 station. When asked, he volunteered that he had a firearm at the property he was 12 renting while construction work was in progress. He later told the police exactly 13 where it was – in a dresser drawer under some clothing. A 9 mm Glock handgun 14 was found inside the manufacturer’s locked hard plastic case. It was properly 15 secured, in that, a metal cable lock was running through the weapon. It was not 16 loaded. There was no ammunition with the gun. He was initially remanded in 17 custody at HMP Northward, before being granted conditional bail, including an 18 electronically monitored curfew. 19 20

¶ [8] On 7 September 2017, he appeared before the Grand Court and was arraigned upon 21 a 5-count indictment. He pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 (importation and 22 possession of the Glock) – and not guilty to counts 3, 4 and 5 (importation and 23 possession of 240 rounds of 9mm ammunition and possession of a BB gun). Those 24 pleas were not acceptable to the prosecution accordingly a date was fixed for trial, 25 set to commence on 19 April 2018. 26 27 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 5 of 13

¶ [9] At the conclusion of the hearing on 7 September 2017, the Defendant’s bail was 1 varied at his request, so as to allow him to return to Florida for ten (10) days to make 2 preparations for a predicted hurricane. A subsequent application to extend his time 3 out of the jurisdiction was refused and the Defendant duly returned. 4 5

¶ [10] On 18 January 2018, following an application, bail was again varied to allow the 6 Defendant to leave the jurisdiction until 4th February 2018 – this time, it was said, 7 for medical reasons. Further applications were made and granted for David Meadors 8 to remain outside the jurisdiction, since it was said that a series of medical tests and 9 procedures were required and that his condition had considerably worsened. 10 Following a hearing, at which the Defendant, David Meadors, appeared by video 11 link, bail was again varied, effectively requiring him to return to the Cayman Islands 12 by 27 April 2018. He did not do so. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but he has 13 consistently refused to return, contending that he is prevented from so doing by his 14 medical condition. He remains outside this jurisdiction. 15 16

¶ [11] The prosecution applied for the Defendant to be tried in his absence upon counts 3, 17 4 and 5 of the indictment. A protracted hearing followed, during which I heard oral 18 evidence via video-link from David Meadors and from two medical experts. I also 19 considered a huge number of medical reports, notes and other material. The question 20 for resolution was whether David Meadors was voluntarily absent – essentially, 21 whether, as he contended, his medical condition was such as to prevent him returning 22 to this jurisdiction to stand trial. I gave a full reasoned judgment in September 2020. 23 I concluded that whilst he did suffer from some medical problems, they were not 24 such as to prevent him from traveling to this jurisdiction and standing trial. That 25 hearing began in October 2019 and was heard over a number of days. Judgment was 26 considerably delayed – amongst other things because of the pandemic restrictions. 27 28 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 6 of 13

¶ [12] On 29 January 2021, at the request of the defence, the Defendant David Meadors 1 was re-arraigned on and pleaded guilty to count 4 of the indictment (possession of 2 ammunition), via video-link. That additional plea resolved the case to the 3 satisfaction of the prosecution. No trial was therefore necessary. I ordered that 4 counts 3 and 5 will lie on the file, marked in the usual way - that is to say, they are 5 not to be proceeded with without the leave of this Court or of the Court of Appeal. 6 7

¶ [13] There are a number of features in this case which, when I put them together, the 8 holistic approach urged by the authorities drives me to conclude that the imposition 9 of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, or indeed any term of 10 imprisonment, would result in an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence. No one 11 factor is decisive, but the cumulative effect is that I do find that there are exceptional 12 circumstances in this case – both as to the offence and as to the offender. Here are 13 the main factors that have driven me to this view. The list is not exhaustive. 14 15 GOOD CHARACTER 16 17

¶ [14] There is clear authority for the proposition that good character, on its own, cannot 18 determine exceptional circumstances, but it is one of the factors I can take into 19 account. This Defendant is 56 years of age, he has no convictions. He has his own 20 business which he has built up over the years through, I accept, hard work and 21 dedication. I have a binder containing seventy-seven (77) character references, 22 provided largely by those who know him well. I have read and re-read each and 23 every one of them. They paint a clear picture of David Meadors. Many speak of his 24 honesty, his integrity, his kindness, his solid and steadfast support and friendship, 25 his generosity and charitable contributions. 26 27 28 29 30 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 7 of 13 THE DEFENDANT’S HEALTH 1 2

¶ [15] No useful purpose would be served by my repeating here what was canvassed at the 3 earlier hearing in late 2019 and summarised at length in my earlier judgment. I make 4 it clear that I do not depart from any of the findings I made then. But it is clear that 5 David Meadors’ health is not what it was. He has significant problems with his 6 eyesight and his hearing; he suffers from arthritis; he is prescribed an 7 immunosuppressant (Rituxan), administered twice per month by infusion. This 8 medication of course lowers his immunity and makes him more vulnerable to 9 infection. A sentence of imprisonment would be harder for him to bear and a greater 10 punishment for him because of his failing health. His needs would present particular 11 difficulties for those at HMP Northward. 12 13 DELAY, MR MEADORS’ RESPONSE TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE EFFECT UPON 14 HIM OF THIS CASE 15 16

¶ [16] This case has taken a very long time to reach a conclusion. Well over 3 ½ years have 17 passed since this Defendant was arrested. I should say straightaway that most of that 18 delay is the fault of the Defendant. At the forefront of my mind – and it is a 19 substantial aggravating feature – is the fact that, having been entrusted with bail, he 20 abused that trust and has deliberately remained outside the jurisdictional reach of 21 this court when he could and should have returned. I do not resile from my earlier 22 finding that, on occasion, Mr Meadors has lied to this court and others to prolong 23 and/or seek to justify his avoidable absence from this jurisdiction. On the face of it, 24 this should not then be taken into account as a mitigating feature. However, the 25 reason for his failure to return – and the reason for his uncharacteristic lapses of 26 frankness and honesty – is his fear (terror is probably not too strong a word) of the 27 possible consequences of his actions, that is, fear of having to serve a sentence of 28 imprisonment. He spent 5 days in custody at Northward prior to being granted bail 29 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 8 of 13 and no doubt that experience remains firmly etched on his memory. It is that abject 1 fear which, in my judgment, has dominated his actions and responses – and it is the 2 reason for him on occasions to have acted dishonourably and dishonestly, which 3 includes attempted manipulation of the medical profession and this court. 4 5

¶ [17] That said, I do not think this sits easily or comfortably with David Meadors. It is 6 clear from the character witnesses that he is generally an honourable and honest man. 7 Whilst he has not returned to this jurisdiction, he has, at all stages, sought to engage 8 in the court process, albeit at a safe distance. His legal team has remained fully 9 instructed throughout, he has actively participated and, obviously taken a keen 10 interest in the case. The point is well made that others in his position, having fled 11 the jurisdiction, would simply have disengaged, not co-operated and/or disappeared. 12 13

¶ [18] Many of his character witnesses speak of the effect these proceedings have had upon 14 him. One speaks of the “heavy toll” the case has taken on him, his health and his 15 family. Another describes the effect of the last 3½ years as “devastating.” His sister 16 describes his experience as having been living through a nightmare. 17 18

¶ [19] Suffice it to say that, whilst I do not begin to condone or make light of his refusal to 19 return to this jurisdiction, I am satisfied that the last 3 ½ years have been a real 20 punishment for David Meadors. He has not taken this case lightly. And of course, 21 the effect of his actions has meant the end of the future he had planned for himself 22 and his wife. His actions have cost him dearly, both in financial terms and in terms 23 of his hopes and his aspirations. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 9 of 13 THE OFFENCES AND MR MEADORS’ CULPABILITY 1 2

¶ [20] I then come to look at these offences and particularly the Defendant’s culpability – 3 that is to say the degree of blameworthiness that attaches to these offences. 4

¶ [21] It is urged on his behalf that he did not appreciate that he was committing an offence 5 by bringing a firearm into this country. It is common ground that the Glock handgun 6 was imported into this country in his checked luggage on a flight from Miami. David 7 Meadors maintains that he thought his American firearms licence would permit him 8 to import and possess a firearm in this jurisdiction. As I suspect was obvious, I had 9 considerable difficulty in understanding how anyone could imagine that it was either 10 acceptable or permissible to bring a firearm into another country, not apparently 11 checking whether that was in accordance with the laws of the country being visited 12 (and in this case, to which he intended to retire) or bothering to read, as David 13 Meadors told me he did not, the contents of the customs declaration form on this or 14 any or his many previous visits to these islands. But despite my misgivings, and 15 knowing all I now know about him, I am prepared to accept that he did not 16 understand the full import or gravity of what he was doing. That was either born of 17 arrogance or of naivety, and in his case, I think it was the latter. I appreciate and 18 make allowances for the very different attitude to possession of firearms that exists 19 in the United States. 20 21

¶ [22] That said, I do not believe what David Meadors says about the 240 rounds of 22 ammunition – that they were somehow packed in the container by mistake. That 23 stretches credibility too far. He imported the handgun, which he said he needed for 24 self-defence purposes, should he be attacked whilst on his boat. He would thus need 25 ammunition. It arrived in the container, I am sure, with his knowledge. 26 27 28 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 10 of 13 THE NEED FOR DETERRENCE 1 2

¶ [23] Plainly, the main reason Parliament provided for a mandatory prison term for 3 firearms offences such as those with which I am now dealing was for it to act as a 4 deterrent, both to the individual defendant and to others. David Meadors, in all the 5 circumstances, needs no further deterrent. Others knowing the full circumstances of 6 these offences and of Mr Meadors’ life since his arrest in July 2017 would, in my 7 view, regard a substantial sentence of imprisonment as both arbitrary and 8 disproportionate. Although not a factor I have taken into account in arriving at my 9 conclusions as to the right sentence, a glimpse into the future, were I now to impose 10 sentences of imprisonment, supports me in my view that it would be 11 disproportionate. In that event, extradition proceedings would be commenced to 12 compel this Defendant to return to the Cayman Islands. Inevitably those proceedings 13 would be contested and, I suspect, take years to resolve, continuing the strain and 14 uncertainty under which he has been living for some years already. A humane justice 15 system should now draw these prolonged proceedings to a close, for the sake of all 16 concerned. 17 18

¶ [24] The gravity of David Meadors’ actions is now understood by him. I am satisfied 19 that I can, in justice, deal with this case by way of financial penalties. Albeit David 20 Meadors told me towards the end of the mention for sentence hearing that his 21 business has suffered during the pandemic, he remains a man of very substantial 22 means. The fines I impose recognise that and are designed to mark the gravity of 23 the offences. 24 25 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 11 of 13

¶ [25] No sentencing exercise in a firearms case would be complete without mention of the 1 case of R v Avis4 and particularly the guidance given as to the four questions the 2 court should consider. I have addressed all of them in my earlier observations. They 3 are as follows: 4 5 i. This was a fully functioning, lethal handgun. It was not loaded. There was 6 no ammunition nearby. The weapon was in a locked case, but in an 7 unlocked drawer and easily portable 8 9 ii. No use had been made of the firearm 10 11 iii. I accept David Meadors possessed it for self-defence if attacked 12 13 iv. This defendant’s record and character, this case aside, is exemplary. 14 15

¶ [26] Again, for the sake of completeness, I should say that I have considered the very 16 recently issued England and Wales Sentencing Council Guidelines for firearms 17 offences, although in the circumstances of this case have not found them to add 18 anything of significance to the submissions made to me and the authorities to which 19 I have been referred. Importation of firearms to these islands by citizens of the 20 United States is a particular problem which is has no ready equivalent in England 21 and Wales. 22 23 GUILTY PLEAS 24 25

¶ [27] Although Mr Meadors pleaded guilty to the three offences for which I now have to 26 pass sentence, I give him little credit for those guilty pleas. True it is that he pleaded 27 guilty to counts 1 and 2 at an early stage, but his behaviour, thereafter, staying away 28 4 [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 178 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 12 of 13 when he should have returned, all but removes the mitigating effect those early pleas 1 would otherwise have had. As to count 4, this of course came very late in the course 2 of this case and thus attracts little credit. 3 4 THE SENTENCES AND ORDERS OF THE COURT 5 6

¶ [28] Firstly, I order the escheatment in full of the US$ 25,000 cash bond deposited with 7 this court as part of his bail conditions. Quite properly, Counsel Mr Tonner on the 8 Defendant’s behalf does not seek to argue otherwise than that this is appropriate 9 given his breach of bail. It necessarily follows in this case. 10 11

¶ [29] In respect of Count 1, importation of an unlicensed firearm, there will be a fine of 12 CI$25,000. 13 14

¶ [30] There will be no separate penalty upon Count 2. 15 16

¶ [31] Upon Count 4 (the 240 rounds of ammunition) there will be a fine of CI$ 5,000. 17 18

¶ [32] I make an order as sought, for David Meadors to pay the Costs of the prosecution of 19 CI$ 3000, together with the fees of Dr Yancey, the expert instructed by the 20 prosecution, in the sum of US$ 13,483.11. 21 22

¶ [33] The charge that I understand this Court holds on David Meadors’ property on 23 Cayman Brac will remain in place until all fines and other financial orders have been 24 satisfied in full. 25 26

¶ [34] I am required to fix terms of imprisonment in default of payment, and they are as 27 follows: 28 29 30 31 32 ___________________________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE Judgment: R v. Meadors (David Dean). Ind. 0060/2017 Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 12th March 2021 Page 13 of 13 i. Count 1: 18 months’ imprisonment in default of payment. 1 ii. Count 4: 3 months’ imprisonment in default of payment 2 iii. Costs imposed: 9 months’ imprisonment in default of payment. 3 4 5

¶ [35] I make orders for forfeiture and destruction of the firearm and ammunition. 6 7 8

¶ [36] As already mentioned, counts 3 and 5 will lie on the file, marked in the usual way. 9 10 Dated this the 12th March 2021 11 12 Justice Roger Chapple 13 Acting Judge of the Grand Court 14